State v. Burns ( 2009 )

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Artie T. Burns, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Dillon County
John L. Breeden, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-262
Submitted May 1, 2009 – Filed June 1, 2009

---

AFFIRMED

---

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman M. Rapoport, all of Columbia, and Solicitor Jay E. Hodge, Jr., of Cheraw, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Artie T. Burns appeals his conviction for trafficking one hundred grams or more of cocaine but less than two hundred grams.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1.  As to whether the trial court erred in denying Burns's motion to suppress the videotape and drugs: State v. Pichardo, 367 S.C. 84, 99, 623 S.E.2d 840, 848 (Ct. App. 2005) ("[A] law enforcement officer's continued questioning of a vehicle's driver and passenger outside the scope of a valid traffic stop passes muster under the Fourth Amendment either when the officer has a reasonable articulable suspicion of other illegal activity or when the valid traffic stop has become a consensual encounter.").

2.  As to whether the trial court erred in allowing the indictment to be amended: S.C. Code Ann. § 17-19-100 (2003) (the trial judge "may amend the indictment . . . if such amendment does not change the nature of the offense charged."); State v. Cutner 354 S.C. 151, 155, 580 S.E.2d 120, 122 (2003), overruled on other grounds by State v. Gentry, 363 S.C. 93, 610 S.E.2d 494 (2005) (holding amendments are generally permitted to correct an error of form such as a scrivener's error).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, PIEPER and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

---

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.